The west seems to have an almost endless appetite for what it sees as global do-goodery but others see as at best irrelevant and at worst arrogant neo-imperialism. Its saviour complex is usually dressed up as the views of 'the international community', but it reeks of hypocrisy and usually betrays a lack of understanding of complex issues.
The latest people the west wants to 'save' are those in Darfur, the westernmost province in Africa's largest country, Sudan. Editorials spew out demands that the said international community 'must do something' to stop the killing there. The media spurs the hue and cry by presenting a black and white version of events. The goods guys are 'innocent black Africans'; the villains are the Sudanese government and the Arab militias that it supports. The words 'ethnic cleansing' are again in the air as reason for intervention.
There is talk of Britain and Australia sending troops, as though they had not learned enough in Afghanistan and Iraq of the problems of trying to impose a foreign order on ethnically complex countries. Thankfully, US President George W. Bush sees the lack of wisdom, in an election year, of another foreign imbroglio, however much it is dressed up in humanitarian clothes.
For sure, nasty things are happening in Sudan, which have led to an exodus of refugees into neighbouring Chad. But the brutal fact is that Sudan has been afflicted by internal ethnic strife for 40 years.
Who is to blame? Sudan's borders are a chance consequence of the interaction of British, French and Turkish empires in 1898 - although Darfur was not formally added until 1916, when the British invaded it and killed its sultan. Perhaps all these African borders should be remade to fit tribal and religious divides. But that is a proposition put forward by no one, least of all by the western nations which created those borders.
Anyway, changing Sudan's western border is not going to solve anything because the issues of Darfur are so much more complex than the saviours would have us believe. For starters, the Arabs there are as black as the 'Africans'. Unlike in the partly Christianised south, all are Muslims. Second, there has long been tension over land between the cattle herders, who are mostly but not entirely Arab, and the settled peoples, who are mostly but not entirely non-Arab tribes. This rivalry has been exacerbated by the southwards push of the Sahara desert.